"which is certainly different from the Western media ethic," - yes, ha, ha, ha, very funny Jodi. Now tell us about the ethic of journalists embedding with the US military and the oh so high quality journalism it produces.

"I believe people want to marry Jews because we're successful (and we are overall the wealthiest group in the U.S. by religion). People want to get ahead, people want to get in with the in crowd. "

That is so absurd. Not to mention a gross generalization about Jews ("we're successful"? - gag me with a spoon). Did the groom forget he was supposed to marry a Jew so he could get ahead? Maybe the groom came from a class that gets educated and socializes with children of vice-presidents. Maybe not all Jews run in those circles. Maybe you have some bizarre complex about the success of Jews. I don't know, but the whole article was weird. Why don't you stick with I/P.

I am reluctant to express any disagreement with the amazing Neta Golan, if for not other reason (like her incredible political work) she is an Israeli insider and I am not. The basis of Jewish Israelis' fear of Arabs that she describes as being rooted in the knowledge that the Palestinians have a just complaint against them, and the land they have taken, as colonizers, seems totally right. The race riot in south T. A., however, seems like a very familiar case of one economically vulnerable community (of any race) taking their fears out on another (often immigrant but not necessarily). One can find examples of this all over the world, not least in the U.S. It is true, perhaps, that the expressed virulence and "Death to Africans" type threats heard in south T.A. are somehow magnified and "gotten away with" because of the underlying racist nature of the state, and "death to Arabs" is already a familiar/acceptable theme. However, it just strikes me that the root of this hate is a little different - economic that is.

I don't get your and Mooser's beef. How do you know George Smith was brought up in any religion? What do you know about how his sons were brought up or how they were indoctrinated, nor if it was only because his spouse desired it? How do you know the religious tenets in Mr. Smith's house do not match (as implied by Mooser above) his own? I gather from the post that Mr. Smith has spoken out any number of times against the injustice against Palestinians and against Zionist B-S. One could equally assume (and be on firmer ground) that the value of speaking out against injustice is a view he shares with his spouse, and "indoctrinated" his sons with. Maybe his view is that raising one's sons Jewish is not at odds with that value. So what's your beef?

"Israel did not want this flytilla to have the same repercussions as the Gaza flotilla had and its authorities have been steadfast in ensuring that a deadly charade would not recur."

The same repercussions? A deadly charade? No, the deaths were real, and Israel caused them. Israel is causing all the "repercussions" - not the least, by not allowing travelers to the West Bank, showing how claiming to be a "democracy" is truly a charade.

I object to “Jewish McCarthy” -It creates a comfort zone similar to “American committed genocide against Indians so it’s not so bad what we are doing.”

The analogy is meant to speak to those who find American McCarthyism objectionable. Those who would justify the crimes of Zionism by saying it is not as bad as American treatment of Native Americans, or as you propose, American McCarthyism, have no moral compass. So either way, it is a good analogy.

The U.S. long ago (i.e., prior to Zionism) established itself as the biggest world-wide bully (think Philipines, for one), so Zionism using the U.S. as it's yardstick is a losing moral proposition.

"Up to this sentence I had thought that the systematic, industrial way the Nazis/SS went about killing the Jews was unique. Now I realized that it was ‘unique’ because the victims consider themselves to be ‘unique’. So, by this definition no other genocide could ever compare to the Jewish Shoa."

I assumed he was being sarcastic, as the concept (of defining the genocide as unique based on who the victims were) is so absurd.

In any case, all insistence by the Elie Weisel types that the Nazi Holocaust was not-only-unique-but-that-nothing-else-comes-even-close notwithstanding, I have never heard this absurd claim that the uniqueness was derived from the idea that an attack on Jews = attack on God, and I do not believe it in any way contributes to "Judaism’s weltanschauung".

Sadly and unfortunately, Jewish kids in the U.S. who sign up for the israeli army and young Americans who joined the U.S. Army after 9/11 are equally "fieiers" - each group feeling the respective group they identify with is under attack, each convinced that they are doing the honorable thing by joining the army, to fight in what are in fact completely dishonorable, unjust wars/attacks. Isn't that what generals count on?

"That said, I'm open-minded; I sense that Rudoren is not a Zionist, that she's tough and smart, and that we're about to see a sea-change in Times coverage."

I think you have the tail wagging the dog. I also think it is not the point that all the NYT reporters sent to cover I/P are Jewish. The NYT sends people who will carry out their editorial policy. The NYT decided it couldn't get away with the IDF-fawning Bronner anymore, and if there's any sea-change, (maybe it will be a pond-change) its because in the face of increasing public understanding of Israel's repression of Palestinians, they need a leeetle more balance. So they changed tack, and think Rudoren can strike a different pose.

As a child of European Jewish immigrants (some of whose siblings came out of Europe later as refugees), I also was struck by the quote you chose, for its irony. Jews WERE chased out of their homes in Europe (if not killed, of course) but it seems that the communal policy of resistance for a whole generation was that of refusing to acknowledge the crimes that would have to be committed against others for zionism to be successful.

"Dr. Finkelstein’s attempt to withdraw this video from You Tube shows the deep conflict going on within liberal Zionism. This conflict has existed since the establishment of Israel."

What video are you talking about (no link?) and what was the evidence that Finkelstein attempted to withdraw it?

As to the letter from Einstein et al, (and liberal Zionism) there was/is resistance to understanding that in Jewish nationalism, as for all other nationalisms, are the seeds for fascism. Nationalism as a way out of your problems is just no good.

...even Adallah admits implicitly that Israel is (or at least was) a democracy – read its statement “a law the likes of which do not exist in any democratic state in the world”.

No, I think to make your (pathetic) point, it would have had to have read:
“a law the likes of which do not exist in any other democratic state in the world”. As though Israel was just one of the bunch.

"It is them being delegitimized because of what they do; it is not anti-Semitism because of who they are."

Hard to say whether the above is antisemitism or not - you are conflating a lot of "theys".

"It is Jews being delegitimized because of what Jews do; it is not anti-Semitism because of who they are."

Or "It is Jews being delegitimized because of what Zionists do; it is not anti-Semitism because of who Jews are."

"Jews do" and "Jews are" are kind of touchy.

Having said that, as the point has been made, considering the appropriation of the Jewish star by Zionism and its expansionist, oppressive policies, the use of the star in anti-Zionist graffiti can hardly be questioned.

I have often felt there is a bit of "reaction formation" going on by Zionists - and the Jewish star symbolizes it well. "We were once pathetic victims (labeled with the Jewish star on the way to our deaths) - now we'll show you - we can be the biggest bully, and label our army with the same star.

Apologies to Phil if this is incorrect, but I would say that perhaps his reaction to the portrayal of Zuckerberg has something to do with some kind of "outsider paranoia" [an impulse I recognize well] - thus the perhaps undue concern with the portrayal of a Jew in a negative light... except that it was his wife (non-Jewish, as I understand it) who first expressed the concern. Perhaps in the context of world history, criticisms of Jews, or Jewish political endeavors (like Zionism) , will always prompt, to one degree or another, either paranoid or legitimate concerns of anti-semitism. What I am trying to figure is whether this column has anything to do with the I/P conflict (other than Phil's blog-ownership perogative) - is it that one just cannot always discern the motivations of a movie maker, just like one cannot always discern the motivations of critics of Zionism? One just has to decide, is the portrayal (or criticism) legit, regardless of motivation.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.